Patent: Canon EF 200-600mm f/4.5-5.6 IS
- Thread starter ahsanford
- Start date
And how many pics did you post here already? I started here by posting some. You?swkitt said:
And how many pics did you shoot within the last two weeks?
My score is at 500+
I take more time taking pictures than beeing here. Thank you!
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
swkitt said:Just like a sigma isn't 6,3 it's just something in between 5,6 and 6,3.
Anyway it's just a patent, nothing says it will be those exact features when it comes to the market if it ever do so.
That's why i think it will come as something similar to the Nikon, with an extra little think that allows Canon to sell it at 2900 on introduction and 2500 after some months of live.
The Sigma lens specs are likely not too different from the Tamron 150-600mm, where "600mm f/6.3" is really 582mm f/6.45.
But you go right ahead and ignore facts that don't fit your version of (un)reality.
Upvote
0
Maximilian said:
Use the formula, 600/105, it gets under 6... of course the aperture is a little under the front element diameter, so approximate to 100, it gets you around 6. But as I said before, technical data and commercial ones are always different.
Upvote
0
Hi,
some months ago, before the 100-400 II was released, my hope was that Canon will replace their old 100-400 with a 200-500/600 whatever. I thought Canon marketing would have expected Tamrons and Sigmas 150-600 lenses and will make something similar.
My question was: what could be the price of an very good L with 500 or 600mm.
I made the graph below... and my hopes for a "cheap" lens were gone. But i still hope they will deliver a 200-500 5.0-6.3 below 3000€.
5.6@600mm... L-quality... 1500 $/€... i want to believe.
I'm sure you will understand what i tried to show with the lines.
BTW: Sorry for my bad english
some months ago, before the 100-400 II was released, my hope was that Canon will replace their old 100-400 with a 200-500/600 whatever. I thought Canon marketing would have expected Tamrons and Sigmas 150-600 lenses and will make something similar.
My question was: what could be the price of an very good L with 500 or 600mm.
I made the graph below... and my hopes for a "cheap" lens were gone. But i still hope they will deliver a 200-500 5.0-6.3 below 3000€.
5.6@600mm... L-quality... 1500 $/€... i want to believe.
I'm sure you will understand what i tried to show with the lines.
BTW: Sorry for my bad english
Attachments
Upvote
0
Then, please, be more precise!swkitt said:
"600 mm" is not always real 600 mm, depending on the optical formula.
And I thought, you'd refering tho the Sigma C:
app. 600 mm / 95 mm = f/6.31 (if 600 mm is true)
see also neuros comment:
neuroanatomist said:
Upvote
0
Since the patent says f at 600mm is 5.2' two things, one f 5.2 vs 6.3 is how much of a stop? I don't know for sure, but more than a third. And 600/ 5.2 gives a front element of somewhere around 115 or 120 if a few mm are needed around the edges to secure it.
So if high enough quality to be able to use an extender 1.4 at least, this is a lens in the 5-6k range.
So if high enough quality to be able to use an extender 1.4 at least, this is a lens in the 5-6k range.
Upvote
0
. Excellent work. Seems very convincing.lightthief said:Hi,
some months ago, before the 100-400 II was released, my hope was that Canon will replace their old 100-400 with a 200-500/600 whatever. I thought Canon marketing would have expected Tamrons and Sigmas 150-600 lenses and will make something similar.
My question was: what could be the price of an very good L with 500 or 600mm.
I made the graph below... and my hopes for a "cheap" lens were gone. But i still hope they will deliver a 200-500 5.0-6.3 below 3000€.
5.6@600mm... L-quality... 1500 $/€... i want to believe.
I'm sure you will understand what i tried to show with the lines.
BTW: Sorry for my bad english
Upvote
0
For many years now, I have been interested in new tele lenses for my Canon cameras. I have often looked tele lenses along many criteria and categories. One way of comparing them are in either of these two camps:
1) Portable (able to fit in a shoulder bag, attached to a DSLR)
2) High mm (able to be handheld, but require a larger bag)
Generally lenses in group 1) are consumer lenses, those up to 300mm (the various 55-250mm, and 70-300mm lenses apply – from most manufacturers). Prices vary a fair bit -generally dependent on quality and features. Exceptions to the ‘rule’ do exist.
I started my venture into the world of ‘tele’ photography with the Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM (when there was not much choice in affordable telezooms). I loved the AF on that lens, and it’s size was just about perfect. IQ wasn’t the best beyond around 170mm… and it seriously lacked IS. Over the years I have tried the Canon 70-300mm non-L, Sigma telezooms, Tamron 70-300mm USD, and various Canon 55-250mm. models.
On the other hand, many lenses in 2) usually are semi-pro, to professional lenses – either featuring / focusing (pun intended) on larger aperture or more mm. In recent years there have been a few slower telezooms from third-party manufacturers.
As I was considering ‘more mm’ - I had looked at the Tamron 200-500mm (but that didn’t impress me much IQ wise, though it was a serious consideration to go for ‘further’ mm than my Canon 100-300 USM).
Then the Canon 70-300mm L came along.. I didn’t actually expect to buy it – but after trying it in my local camera store (while I was looking at the Tamron 70-300mm USD). I actually fell in love with the Canon 70-300mm L, when I realised how portable it is. The IQ at the tele is so much better than my 100-300mm, so I upgraded immediately. And I have not at all been disappointed!
Now I don’t know if I’ll even get a lens longer than 300mm, but if I do, it will probably be a telezoom going to 500mm or more.. I do not see the reason to upgrade my 70-300mm, which is very versatile. I have tried / used a few friends’ Canon 100-400mm (both v1 and V2) – and V2 is very similar in IQ to the 70-300mm L (only by pixel peeping will you see it’s a hair sharper). The few V1s I used were a bit more noticeably lower in the IQ department.
But both versions of Canon’s 100-400mm just make it less user-friendly as a ‘travel / portable’ lens than the 70-300mm. I would LOVE to buy the 200-400mm L 1.4x, but a) it really is a huge and specialist lens and b) it costs significantly more. If someone gives me several thousand $ and says I MUST spend it on a lens, that would probably be my lens of choice. I prefer mm over aperture in general, as I don’t shoot sports – I prefer doing wildlife and bird photography to sports.
In my mind I had done the figures projection and therefore had a mental chart very similar to what lightthief has provided (well done, lighttheif). So I know that a good, quality lens (especially a zoom) going to 500mm or more is neither going to be cheap, nor small.
If Canon is indeed going to pursue a 200-600mm ‘slow’ lens to market, I expect it will be around the USD$3,000 - $5,000 mark for RRP, dependent on features (e.g. AF, IS, build) and IQ. While I doubt I would actually get such a lens, I expect it would be a very attractive lens to use for the various wildlife / bird photography genres I enjoy.
Regards
Paul 8)
1) Portable (able to fit in a shoulder bag, attached to a DSLR)
2) High mm (able to be handheld, but require a larger bag)
Generally lenses in group 1) are consumer lenses, those up to 300mm (the various 55-250mm, and 70-300mm lenses apply – from most manufacturers). Prices vary a fair bit -generally dependent on quality and features. Exceptions to the ‘rule’ do exist.
I started my venture into the world of ‘tele’ photography with the Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM (when there was not much choice in affordable telezooms). I loved the AF on that lens, and it’s size was just about perfect. IQ wasn’t the best beyond around 170mm… and it seriously lacked IS. Over the years I have tried the Canon 70-300mm non-L, Sigma telezooms, Tamron 70-300mm USD, and various Canon 55-250mm. models.
On the other hand, many lenses in 2) usually are semi-pro, to professional lenses – either featuring / focusing (pun intended) on larger aperture or more mm. In recent years there have been a few slower telezooms from third-party manufacturers.
As I was considering ‘more mm’ - I had looked at the Tamron 200-500mm (but that didn’t impress me much IQ wise, though it was a serious consideration to go for ‘further’ mm than my Canon 100-300 USM).
Then the Canon 70-300mm L came along.. I didn’t actually expect to buy it – but after trying it in my local camera store (while I was looking at the Tamron 70-300mm USD). I actually fell in love with the Canon 70-300mm L, when I realised how portable it is. The IQ at the tele is so much better than my 100-300mm, so I upgraded immediately. And I have not at all been disappointed!
Now I don’t know if I’ll even get a lens longer than 300mm, but if I do, it will probably be a telezoom going to 500mm or more.. I do not see the reason to upgrade my 70-300mm, which is very versatile. I have tried / used a few friends’ Canon 100-400mm (both v1 and V2) – and V2 is very similar in IQ to the 70-300mm L (only by pixel peeping will you see it’s a hair sharper). The few V1s I used were a bit more noticeably lower in the IQ department.
But both versions of Canon’s 100-400mm just make it less user-friendly as a ‘travel / portable’ lens than the 70-300mm. I would LOVE to buy the 200-400mm L 1.4x, but a) it really is a huge and specialist lens and b) it costs significantly more. If someone gives me several thousand $ and says I MUST spend it on a lens, that would probably be my lens of choice. I prefer mm over aperture in general, as I don’t shoot sports – I prefer doing wildlife and bird photography to sports.
In my mind I had done the figures projection and therefore had a mental chart very similar to what lightthief has provided (well done, lighttheif). So I know that a good, quality lens (especially a zoom) going to 500mm or more is neither going to be cheap, nor small.
If Canon is indeed going to pursue a 200-600mm ‘slow’ lens to market, I expect it will be around the USD$3,000 - $5,000 mark for RRP, dependent on features (e.g. AF, IS, build) and IQ. While I doubt I would actually get such a lens, I expect it would be a very attractive lens to use for the various wildlife / bird photography genres I enjoy.
Regards
Paul 8)
Upvote
0
I would very surprised if Canon produced a lens with 100mm+ diameter and charged less than $5000 for it ...
And in that case then obviously they aren't particularly trying to compete with those other brands, although I guess it still would give an option to those who want to spend more than $2000, but up to the current big white prices.
And in that case then obviously they aren't particularly trying to compete with those other brands, although I guess it still would give an option to those who want to spend more than $2000, but up to the current big white prices.
Upvote
0
Jack Douglas said:neuroanatomist said:Don Haines said:
Nonsense. C'mon, Don...drink the Koolaid. Reality is boring, anyway.
Made me think of Jim Jones in Africa - hope that's not what you meant!
I read CR for the humour or is it humor!
Jack
off topic to say the least, but jim jones was in guyana, south america.
Upvote
0
longtallkarl, you are so right. Off topic? No more than Cool-aide. LOL That was a chilling event to say the least. I know, I shouldn't inject such comments.
Jack
Jack
Upvote
0
AJ said:
For some perspective, the FD 150-600 f/5.6L is just a hair larger/heavier than the EF 600mm f/4 L IS II. Given an exchange rate around $250 in 1982, it would set you back about $3,500 (880,000 yen) - twice the cost of the FD 500 f/4.5 L or FD 300 f/2.8L, 50% more than the FD 800 f/5.6L, and about half the cost of the average new car purchased that year.
Upvote
0
dcm, I bought an F1 and FD 200 in 1976 and it wasn't cheap but somehow it doesn't ring a bell as being as high as the D1 and L lenses today, but memory fades. For sure many cars were relatively more expensive than today. Dollar value today compared to 1976 at least 10 to 20 times I'd think (inflation)?? Are we getting better value now? Are we appearing spoiled in wishing for a $2000 600mm zoom lens from Canon? I'd say so.
Jack
Jack
Upvote
0
WHEN?
I checked the link and what CR posted as well. I believe it would make sense if Canon was working in such a lens, mostly taking into consideration how popular the Sigmas and the Tamron are becoming between wildlife photographers who are not willing to pay 8K for a 500mm or even much more for the 600mm f/4.
I guess they also want the lens to be appealing for sports since, honestly, I do not really see the need for a 200 or 300mm range for wildlife, it just feels like you never have enough focal length, and you can most of the times shot from farther but not closer so I don't care about the zoom, I would have preferred to see a 500mm f/5.6 or even a 600mm f/5.6 or 6.3; but it is what it is. If this rumor is truth, I would like to get this lens to replace my 400 f/5.6
As of right now, Canon needs this lens to be released, yes, but is that set in stone? If so, WHEN do you guys think this will be happening?
I checked the link and what CR posted as well. I believe it would make sense if Canon was working in such a lens, mostly taking into consideration how popular the Sigmas and the Tamron are becoming between wildlife photographers who are not willing to pay 8K for a 500mm or even much more for the 600mm f/4.
I guess they also want the lens to be appealing for sports since, honestly, I do not really see the need for a 200 or 300mm range for wildlife, it just feels like you never have enough focal length, and you can most of the times shot from farther but not closer so I don't care about the zoom, I would have preferred to see a 500mm f/5.6 or even a 600mm f/5.6 or 6.3; but it is what it is. If this rumor is truth, I would like to get this lens to replace my 400 f/5.6
As of right now, Canon needs this lens to be released, yes, but is that set in stone? If so, WHEN do you guys think this will be happening?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
